This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times
of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have
been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody
Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of
murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly
did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five
British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US
military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to
do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to
Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very
sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi
government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do
not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it
in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in
the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages.
And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the
political process and release their hostages while their leaders are
behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for
hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to
people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters
were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon
reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the
department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the
prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization --
terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to
know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the
intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were:
Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N.
Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of
Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York;
and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the
five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali
are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states
that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the
release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did?
Somebody needs to answer for it."

The
US military believed that they had in custody those who had
orchestrated the killing of 5 US soldiers. Barack Obama may claim this
week, "I will stand with our troops every single time," but he didn't in
June 2009.

He chose to stand with the British. He chose to release people believed to be responsible for the deaths of 5 US soldiers.

He
did that and refused to answer questions about it -- and the timid
press refused to ever ask him about it when they had him for a sit down.
We know what the father of Jonathan B. Chism thought, "They freed them?
The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

Somebody
needs to. And when Barack boasted, "I will stand with our troops every
single time," he should have been booed. 5 US service members believed
to be killed by the League of Righteous -- brutally killed, kidnapped
and killed -- and Barack orders the release of the leaders and does so
because he wants to score points with the British? No, he did not choose
to stand with US troops.

And
what came of the deal he made with the League of the Righteous? It
didn't end there. It didn't end with the December 30, 2009 release of
British citizen Peter Moore who was alive or with the three corpses Alec
Maclachlan (body handed over in September), Jason Crewswell (body
handed over in June) and Jason Swindelhurst (body handed over in June).
That left Alan McMenemy. And we called Barack out for this deal, we've
continued to call him out. But, too bad for Barack, terrorists talk.
They tattle.

Though
Barry's 'big' deal was supposed to free all five, the League, years
later, is now insisting they want a new deal (and figure Barry's just
the pushover to give it to them?).

Al Mada reports
they have issued a statement where they savage the US government for
not honoring -- and quickly honoring -- the agreement made with them. As
a result, they say Alan McMenemy will not be released.Peter
Moore, the only one released alive, was a computer tech working in
Iraq. Four British bodyguards were protecting him. The bodyguards were
McMenemy, Jason Swindlehurst, Alec MacLachlan and Jason Cresswell. The
families of the four have continued to publicly request that Alan
McMenemy be released. They condemn the "procrastionation" of the US
government after the deal was made and state that a promise was also
broken when "US forces did not stop attacks" -- apparently Barack made
very grand promises -- so now Alan McMenemy will not be released. The
statement is credited to Akram al-Ka'bi.What the statement really
does is demonstrate what many condemned in 2009: The US government, the
administration, entered into an agreement that did not benefit the US or
Iraq. They freed known killers from prison. Killers of Iraqis, killers
of American citizens. There was nothing to be gained by that act for
Iraq or the US. At some point, history will ask how Barack Obama thought
he was fulfilling his duties of commander in chief by making such an
ignorant move?

Poor Barack. He made a deal with terrorists and the terrorists weren't kind enough to stay quiet about it. January 5th
of this year they said they'd release the body of Alan McMenemy and
did. It really was the British government's responsibility, their five
citizens. The US government's responsibility should have been putting
the League on trial. Certainly if you claim "I will stand with our
troops every single time" that should be what you do.

But
it gets worse. They were the leaders of the group behind it. There was
also a name that's received a great deal more attention from the press:
Ali Mousa Daqduq. He was the Lebanese that the US military kept in
custody in Iraq. Possibly because he wasn't an Iraqi, the League didn't
care about getting his release.

December 17, 2011, Charlie Savage (New York Times) reported
on what was termed "a move likely to unleash a political backlash
inside the United States." What was he reporting on? The White House's
decision to release Ali Musa Daqduq to the Iraqi government, the man
"accused of helping to orchestrate a January 2007 raid by Shiite
militants who wore U.S.-style uniforms and carried forged identity
cards. They killed five U.S. soldiers -- one immediately and four others
who were kidnapped and later shot and dumped beside a road." Reporting on it the same day, Matt Apuzzo (AP) noted the reactions of two US senators.

Senator Mark Kirk (in a letter before the release): "Daqduq's
Iranian paymasters would like nothing more than to see him transferred
to Iraqi custody, where they could effectively pressure for his escape
or release. We truly hope you will not let that happen."

Senator
Saxby Chambliss (after news broke of the release): "Rather than ensure
justice for five American soldiers killed by Hezbollah terrorist Ali
Musa Daqduq, the administration turned him over to Iraq, once again
completely abdicating its responsibility to hold on to deadly
terrorists. Given Iraq's history of releasing detainees, I expect it is
only a matter of time before this terrorist will be back on the
battlefield."

Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported
that US National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor insisted
that the White House "sought and received assurances that he will be
tried for his crimes." Some assurances. May 7th,
Daqduq was cleared of all charges. Senator Kelly Ayotte released a
statement that day noting that she and 19 other US Senators lodged their
objection to transferring Daqduq July 21, 2011 in a formal letter which
"expressed the Senators' concerns that transferring Daqduq to Iraqi
custody might result in his release and a return to terrorist
activities." Those concerns were dismissed. When the May 7th verdict
came down the White House demanded a "do-over" in Iraqi courts. No
surprise (except maybe to the White House) the same Iraqi courts cleared
Daqduq of the charges which led the July 12th fuming from the White House that appeared to be just for show:

Lara Jakes and Qassim abdul-Zahra (AP) report
that Antony Blinken -- Vice President Joe Biden's national security
adviser -- states that the US wants Daqduq to be hld and that they not
only want to see him extradited to the US, they've already made that
request. They also note, "Abdul-Sattar
Bayrkdar, spokesman for Iraq's Supreme Judicial Council said the
appeals court ruling is final and there are no charges pending against
Daqduq. Ali al-Moussawi, media adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki, said he was unaware of any U.S. request to extradite Daqduq."

The
White House said they had made a request. Iraq said, no, they hadn't.
And there's been no mention of it since -- the press really rolls over
for this administration -- despite the fact that Blinken was just in
Iraq last week and was holding Nouri's hand and cooing in his ear so
much that Nouri was bragging to the press that the White House was
siding with him and not ExxonMobil with regards to the oil deal Nouri
wants cancelled (between ExxonMobil and the KRG).

Again,
yesterday Barack Obama claimed, "I will stand with our troops every
single time." That's the claim, the record suggests something else
completely.